Ad Hoc

A cynical curmudgeon named Ben Stein has been making the rounds of talk shows, promoting a soon-to-be-released movie.
(http://expelledthemovie.com/)

Judging from the trailer for the movie, it will be yet another rehash of Intelligent Design. The trailer shows a teacher at a chalkboard, talking to his class about evolution. Stein, at the rear of the class, interrupts to ask how life could arise from inanimate matter.

The teacher acts caught out. He mumbles and stutters. He says they have gone over this time and again. Stein responds that the teacher never answers the question. He brings up the possibility of ID, and the other students all nod approvingly.

Leave aside for the moment the fact that several hypotheses about the origin of life are presently being scientifically explored. (See, e.g., http://tinyurl.com/z2ylv.) Stein’s notion of ID demonstrates once again a fallacy that constantly shows up in ID claims. In fact, this fallacy has been pointed out so frequently that it has acquired a title: God of the Gaps.

Religion loves a mystery, meaning anything currently unexplainable. Theistic people can then “explain” the unknown by positing a god or gods who make it all happen.

An excellent article, “The Last Gasp for the God of the Gaps” by Greg Perkins is still available: (http://tinyurl.com/5ox38o)

When you already “know” — throughRevelaton — that God exists and created everything, you can safely ridicule any scientific teaching that contradicts your “knowledge.”

Stein, and ID proponents generally, already “know” how life got started; how the universe itself got started. God did it, and they “don’ need no steenking” scientific theories.

The focus of the ID movement is to ridicule the theory of evolution, which, they are correct in fearing, gives the lie to the notion of “creation ex nihilo.” The deeper purpose of ID is to more firmly embed religion into politics so that education and legislation will reflect the religionists’ views of the world and morality.

Of course, Stein’s movie is bent on deriding any idea of a universe with no God to make it go, so the focus (in the trailer) is the humiliation of the teacher who can’t answer it.

–Ken

Ad Hoc has been out of commission for awhile. While trying to categorize my former posts, I managed to lose a bunch of them. Server owner Prodos worked heroically to recover some (most?) of them from Google’s cache.

Prodos is also trying to find out what caused the loss in the first place. We have determined that it has something to do with CSS settings. Ad Hoc does not display properly in my browser. This apparently caused a misalignment of buttons and labels in the editiing page, so that when I hit “edit” I instead got “delete.”

In fact, I have two browsers and the blog does not look the way it should in either. I suspect some conflict with another program. I’ve been trying, sporadically, to be systematic in trying to track down which it might be.
In any case, Prodos found me a way to work around the problem while he applies his magnificent mind to its solution, so the blog is (sort of) back in business.

–Ken

Cartoon drawings of Mohammad are back in the news lately. True to form, Muslims are rioting and making dire threats.

Have Muslims no choice but to be offended by cartoons depicting Mohammad? No choice but violence in their response? The answers to these two questions need not be the same.

If we understand “taking offense” to be emotional reaction, then the Muslims who take offense — who feel offended by the cartoons — probably have no immediate choice. One feels what one feels.

The answer to the second question: choice is the name of the game. To assert that no choice of actions is available to them would be to deny free will. It’s of the essence of humanithy to have the capacity to choose actions on the basis of thought.

Muslims, or anybody, who disdain thinking in favor of faith, have only whim to guide their actions. And so they whimsically riot against all who do not share their thoughtless respect of their “Prophet.”

–Ken

It was not long ago that, if someone had asked which of the declared candidates I wanted for President, I would have said, “ABH”. Anybody But Hillary.

Lately, though, all the tiresome hype coming out of my TV has broken through my political ennui. At any rate, it has broken through to the extent that I’ve become aware of the “qualifications” of Mike Huckabee.

This politician, with his strong evangelical credentials, is worse even than Hillary Clinton. Worse in the sense of, dangerous to our country.

Should it eventually come to a choice between the two of them, I would have to close my eyes, hold my nose, and vote for Hillary.

The only — very minor — positive here, is that I can still make the same answer to the hypothetical question I opened with.

Only now, “ABH” means “Anybody But Huckabee.”

No postings to Ad Hoc in a long time. It’s probably time for an explanatiion.

Back before Thanksgiving, while I was out for my customary walk/run, …I fainted. One moment I was walking along, listening to Tara Smith on my iPod; the next moment I was on my back looking up at the trees and clouds.

I was only out for a maximum of two seconds. I know this, because I later determined that I had only missed a couple of words of the lecture.

Although my heart has always been declared strong and healthy at physical exam time, a closer look with high powered (and expensive) equipment showed some blockage in a coronary artery and a tendency for my heart’s timeing to be off when it gets above a certain rate.

The upshot is, I’ve had a stent installed and then a pacemaker implanted. I’m still dealing with the latter, and the former requires taking blood thinning drugs which complicates healing.

So, boys and girls, now you know why you’ve had to wait — breathlessly, I’m sure — for Ad Hoc to return.

Merry Saturnalia!

–Ken

In Iran, there are religious courts. Their decisions are enforced, brutally and sometimes publically, by the police. There have been many reports of the harsh punishment dealt out to those who break Islamic law. I saw another such report the other day.

“His face covered by a balaclava, an official brandishing a cane repeatedly lashes the back of a man found guilty of breaking Iran’s morality laws.

“Two police officers hold the legs of 25-year-old Saeed Ghanbari and another his arms to ensure there is no escape from the punishment of 80 lashes handed down by a religious court.

“Traffic was brought to a halt in Qazvin, 90 miles west of the capital Tehran, as more than 1,000 men gathered behind barricades to watch the public flogging…”

Pictures are inserted showing a hefty, masked official obviously putting all his weight and strength behind the blows as he lashes the man.

“…Both men then lashed Ghanbari, taking the cane back behind their heads to guarantee maximum impact, each stroke leaving a distinctive red mark and bruising on his back.

“Several wounds began to bleed.

“It was unclear exactly what his offense had been as the country’s strict morality laws cover many areas, but it was reported he had been convicted of abusing alcohol and having sex outside of marriage.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=477088&in_page_id=1770
Fundamentalist Christians have no problem with the idea of criminalizing immoral conduct. After all, they say, God made the rules, and those are the rules men should be obeying. Man’s rights have little bearing where God’s wishes are concerned. Today’s Christians might not be willing to go so far as public flogging, but give tomorrow’s Christians the chance to be truly in power and I fail to see how they would be any different from the Muslims.

As brief evidence, there were some comments from readers in England and Wales following the above report, to the effect that this is the kind of punishment needed in the West. The lawbreakers know the law so they deserve the punishment, “unlike this country (Wales) where the victims pay the price and the guilty walk free.”

–Ken

Reuters reports that Iran’s deputy Interior Minister for security affairs has threatened the United States. “In case of American attack against Iran, the interests of this country around the world and in the region will be endangered.”

And, “Today, if the slightest disorder in the region’s security and in the security of the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf is created, oil prices will reach $250 a barrel and this will lead to the death of European countries and America in terms of economy and security.”

And, “Maybe the start of an evil act (could) be in America’s hand but its continuation and end won’t be (in its hands).”

And, Reuters reminisced about Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Hamenei, threatening that the Islamic Republic would target US Interests around the world

I hate blowhard threats. The only thing that makes these Iranian threats credible is the insipid, appeasing response America can be counted on to make to any Iranian viciousness. If only President Bush had meant what he said about going after states that sponsor terrorism, America would not now be in the position of trying to appease a bully.

Any attack the U.S. might make against Iran would be justified. The threats quoted above are, all by themselves and regardless of Iran’s preparations for nuclear war, sufficient provocation to justify preemptive attack. How I wish my country would return to the attitude that prompted our response to the outrage that occurred at Pearl Harbor in 1941.

–Ken

One of my heroes, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, is to be released on parole from prison June 1, after serving over eight years of a 10- to 25-year sentence. He is the retired pathologist who was imprisoned over eight years ago for assisting a man to end his life. He is scheduled to appear on “60 Minutes” two days later, on June 3, 2007.

There is sure to be a lot of attention paid to his release; the media likes to sensationalize their reports about Dr. Kevorkian; they make up terms like “Dr. Death” and capitalize on the supposed “contradiction” of a physician assisting a patient to die.

Lost in the controversy is the concept of individual rights. It is each individual’s choice whether to keep on living. After all, whose life is it? If a person chooses to end his life, it is his right to hire a physician to help him end it in a way that is both painless and efficient. And, it is a doctor’s right to provide such help if he sees fit.

Life is sacred, the opponents of physician-assisted suicide say; it’s never right to purposely end it. They are right that life is sacred. That’s why it must be ended when it loses its value to the person concerned. The question then is, how best to end it. To prohibit a doctor of his choice from helping that person is to deny both of them their right to live as they choose.

–Ken

The short version: Islamic terrorists attack the United States over a period of years in a multitude of ways, culminating in the destruction of the World Trade Center and several thousand American lives.

Instead of focusing on what is needed for the future safety of Americans, our government attacks Afghanistan with bombs and food packets, and aids the setting up of a predominantly Islamic government. Then, our government overthrows Saddam Hussein — an obviously evil dictator — and replaces his regime with …an Islamic government.

The fact that the governments which our government is fostering are democracies is irrelevant to the safety of Americans. Our safety depends on the destruction of the Islamic terrorists, and that depends on destroying the states that support them. This will never be accomplished by “winning the hearts and minds” of the terrorists and their supporters, by setting up democracies in the countries that sponsor them, nor by “negotiating” with our avowed enemies.

When you are threatened (whether “you” refers to an individual or a country) you deal with the threat. You do not try to help your threatener become nice.

The attacks, over the years, on our embassies, the USS Cole, etc., climaxing (thus far) in the WTC destruction, have put the United States in very hot frying pan. With our government’s social work war policies, we are leaping headlong into the fire.

–Ken

Shiites? Sunnis? It’s often been hard to keep them distinguished, in my mind. Iraq apparently has both varieties of Moslems and they hate each other and war upon each other, although both are sects of Islam. The government under Saddam Hussein was mostly Sunni, I believe.

I do know, from repetitions ad nauseum on the news, that the Shiites are in charge of Iraq’s new democratic government. I am pretty sure that the leadership in Iran is also Shiite. Both Iran and Iraq are Moslem, but Iran is not Arab.

Anyway, Condoleeza Rice says that
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/world/19rice.html?ex=1176091200&en=d36130c87b46aa2b&ei=5070
Iraq’s government (Shiite) sees itself as Arab. It wants a place in the Arab world (does the Arab League still exist?). She thinks the only way Iraq’s government would ally itself with Iran is if they are denied a place in the Arab world. So, I would guess that “our” policy is to encourage Iraq’s inclusion with other Arabs, thus adding to Iran’s isolation.

If our government would only do what it should — take Iran out of the picture — I wouldn’t have to get headaches trying to figure out all this tribal/religious folderol.

–Ken

The other day, Iran took 15 British sailors and marines prisoner in the Shatt Al-Arab. The Iranian government alleges the sailors were engaged in espionage.

What is the Shatt Al-Arab?

The Tigris and Euphrates have flowed through what is now Iraq since ancient times. The Shatt Al-Arab is the “waterway” that begins where they now come together, in southern Iraq, The Iranians call it the Arvandrud river. It runs for about 125 miles and discharges into the Persian Gulf. Approximately the last 35-40 miles at the southern end run along the disputed border between Iraq and Iran. This is apparently where the Britons were seized.

These Brits are part of a task force under the authority of the UN Security Council, and are there to “maintain security.” They had apparently just searched a merchant ship. They were taken to Tehran and, under “interrogation,” allegedly admitted to espionage.

I don’t know for sure, of course, what the sailors were actually doing, nor where the international boundary “should” be. What I do know is that the British government should demand the return of their citizens (which I understand they have done). Then, when Iran does not comply, Britain should go get them. The United States should back the British in this, thus making up in part for our failure to free our embassy in 1979 when the Iranians overran it and kept fifty-some people hostage for well over a year.

My prediction though (which doesn’t require a crystal ball), is that negotiation and appeasement will be the weapon of choice once again.

–Ken

The news now is full of chatter about “explosively formed projectiles,” made in Iran, smuggled into Iraq for use against American troops. The effect of this chatter is an escalation of denials of hostile intentions toward Iran by Bush and his spokesmen.

Of course, Iran’s EFP’s are merely the latest of a long series of assaults against the United States. But they could have been a cited reason for finally unleashing our military and eliminating Iran as a threat. I would really like to understand the mentality that seeks to negotiate with murderous enemies rather than destroying them.

–Ken

The other day, Senator Joe Biden made what could be taken as a less-than-politically-correct remark about Black leaders. He referred to Barrack Obama, who had just announced for the Democratic nomination for President, as “clean,” implying that others are maybe not so much. The “others” might include Jesse Jackson, Charlie Rangel and Al Sharpton.

The reaction, as reported by the news media, has consisted of lots of chuckling and grinning. They say ol’ Joe put his foot in his mouth again, as though it was pretty funny, all right. Up to his old high jinks again, like, remember last year? Made that crack about Indians? And when Biden wanted to explain this gaff, what did he pick for a forum? A late night comedy talk show. Yep, it was downright funny.

Ask yourself what the media reaction would have been if Biden’s remark had been made by, say, Dick Cheney. There’d be no nudges and winks. The remark would be taken as evidence of the foulest of motives, not passed over as a simple mistaken word choice.

A few weeks ago, Teddy Kennedy was given a free pass for referring to Barrack Obama as, “Osama Obama.” Suppose President Bush, who is prone to occasional misspeaking, had made that mistake. What a field day the press would have had with that!

–Ken

Hamas and fatah are fighting one another. Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq are fighting each other. How is this bad for the United States? What are we doing in the middle of it all?

–Ken

There’s another year into the books.

Ladies and gentlemen, best of everything in the year to come. Ever since I’ve been alive, we’ve had what the politicians call, “perilous times.” Mostly made so by said politicians. I see no evidence that the coming year will be any different in that regard, but a non-perilous new year would certainly be a happy one.

–Ken